Rad, this is indeed all so amazing, and helpful. Yet it raises a question for me that I am not sure falls within the confines of what this message board is about, so I will try to keep it within the EA paradigm.

Given these insights about the lives of destitution and poverty that have influenced this soul towards its current incarnational choices, I feel the need to understand why the soul "chose" those lives of great impoverishment to start with, and what it hoped to learn. Is that something that can gleaned solely through the current chart, and through the EA lens?

I guess I'm always thinking in terms of how to help or diagnose, and from that perspective, if we can know/intuit the places where the thinking or responses in those lifetimes went contrary to the soul's intentions, then those are the places where healing and therapeutic help can theoretically occur now.

So, in my processing of the dynamics of Romney's chart, it still seems important -- if not necessarily essential-- to know the intentions behind those "past" experiences of impoverishment and powerlessness, to understand better how and why the lessons/tests were presumably missed and led instead to a karmic desire to join the path of the Zarathrustas. I hope my question makes sense.

Rad, this is indeed all so amazing, and helpful. Yet it raises a question for me that I am not sure falls within the confines of what this message board is about, so I will try to keep it within the EA paradigm.

Given these insights about the lives of destitution and poverty that have influenced this soul towards its current incarnational choices, I feel the need to understand why the soul "chose" those lives of great impoverishment to start with, and what it hoped to learn. Is that something that can gleaned solely through the current chart, and through the EA lens?

I guess I'm always thinking in terms of how to help or diagnose, and from that perspective, if we can know/intuit the places where the thinking or responses in those lifetimes went contrary to the soul's intentions, then those are the places where healing and therapeutic help can theoretically occur now.

So, in my processing of the dynamics of Romney's chart, it still seems important -- if not necessarily essential-- to know the intentions behind those "past" experiences of impoverishment and powerlessness, to understand better how and why the lessons/tests were presumably missed and led instead to a karmic desire to join the path of the Zarathrustas. I hope my question makes sense.

Thanks so much again,

Steven

Hi Steven,

Your question is well taken and it is certainly within the parameter of EA. The answer is that it's not an issue of his Soul desiring lives of poverty and destitution per se. Countless Souls have had such lives not because of a desire to do so, but because of the nature of the times being lived within conditions caused by the patriarchy that were in full affect around 5,500 B.C.E. It is consciousness created by the patriarchal perversion of natural laws, including the natural law of giving, sharing, and inclusion that lead to creating societies and countries in which a relatively small amount of people had great power, wealth, and prestige.

The vast majority of peoples thus lived in relative poverty and destitution as compared to these relative few. So the Soul of Romney of course found itself is such conditions in many, many lives, just like most of us have. In those lives, within the consensus state, he made his observations and judgements of this fact, and of course just who these relatively few were that had all the power, wealth, and prestige. In those observations and judgements the Soul of Romney concluded that God must have made certain Souls to be special, to be Zarathustra's, as compared to the vast majority of all other humans.

You can see this in his chart with his Venus in Aquarius in his 10th, which is conjunct the S.Nodes of Neptune, Saturn, Vesta and Venus itself, in opposition to his natal Saturn in Leo in the 3rd and Pluto in the 4th and these then being conjunct his N.Node of Neptune. His natal Neptune in Libra is in his 5th: royalty/ Zarathustra's. It is also seen relative to the ruler of his 2nd House, personal values that correlate to the meaning of life that then define the person's inner relationship to them self, in his 10th: his Mercury in Pisces retrograde conjunct his Mars. The 10th House of course, among other archetypes, is about the nature of judgements and how societies or countries are structured: it's norms, customs, taboos, laws which all condition any Soul's consciousness in any given life that it lives. It also correlates to how any given Soul integrates itself into it's society, country, of birth: it's role on behalf of society. And of course his Mercury and Mars are ruled by, yep, his Neptune in the 5th.

It was in such lives that the Soul of Romney became jealous and envious of those who were the 'special one's' who had all this wealth, power, and privilege. Jealousy of course is Scorpio, Pluto, and the 8th House. Within that jealousy his Soul considered itself to be special, and that it did not 'deserve' to be in these miserable life conditions. This is symbolized by not only what I just mentioned, but also by his Jupiter/Moon conjunction in Scorpio in his 6th which are conjunct his S.Node in Sagittarius in his 7th. One of the archetypes of the 7th, Libra, and Venus in one of extremities. So his jealousy became so intense that it then became the cause of his singular desire to be one of the self appointed Zarathustra's. He desired to be served by the masses, to be given too, versus giving, like the majority of people around him, to these Zarathustra's, the special few.

With his S.Node in Sagittarius relative to the S.Nodes of Jupiter, Saturn, Vesta, AND PLUTO, he actually created and later joined philosophies and religions that postulated that indeed God created Zarathustra's that were meant to be served by the great masses of common or 'little people'. So, of course, this self justifying philosophy served as the rationalizations needed in order to justify himself in this way. In his current life Romney is of course a Mormon. Relative to it's founder, Joseph Smith, these people considered themselves special which included it's own hierarchy within it. Part of it's specialness was even the Caucasian race itself: African Americans, black people, any other race was inferior to being White. It's patriarchal dimensions were so warped that men could have of course many wives, but, of course the women could only have one man. In another recent life of Romney's, without going into any detail, he was immersed in the philosophy of Fredric Neitzsche. Interestingly, Neitzsche's Moon is conjunct the S.Node of Romney's in Sagittarius, and his Saturn in conjunct Romney's natal Venus.

So it is this singular desire to be a Zarathustra that was born of the conditions of life that most of us have experienced in our own past lives that then became the causative factor in the lives that he created to become what he has become.

"This is what I mean by the rise of Paganism. The effort to create alternatives to marriage between a man and a woman are perfectly natural pagan behaviors but they are a fundamental violation of our civilization."

To be honest in my opinion, the biggest threat to civilization would come from a Newt and Netanyahu union vs. the Arab world. Whereas Romney is a wannabe, Newt is the real deal. He is a fundamental patriarch to his core and has been for a long long time. (lifetimes, biblical and roman) (that's my own perception talking, not the chart). You just dont get that thick into it unless you've 'been there and done that' before and for him, it oozes out of his pores.

I would like to hear more about Newts past via his chart. I cant envision a scenario where either of them beat Obama. I just don't see it happening. The world is changing but its not going backwards.

I don't often do this and I realize its off topic. But I read an article about Newt earlier that was so insane it reminded me of the Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland. This man is bonkers and is a serious candidate for President of USA. In the article he states he would have Sarah Palin in his cabinet if elected.

"This is what I mean by the rise of Paganism. The effort to create alternatives to marriage between a man and a woman are perfectly natural pagan behaviors but they are a fundamental violation of our civilization."

To be honest in my opinion, the biggest threat to civilization would come from a Newt and Netanyahu union vs. the Arab world. Whereas Romney is a wannabe, Newt is the real deal. He is a fundamental patriarch to his core and has been for a long long time. (lifetimes, biblical and roman) (that's my own perception talking, not the chart). You just dont get that thick into it unless you've 'been there and done that' before and for him, it oozes out of his pores.

I would like to hear more about Newts past via his chart. I cant envision a scenario where either of them beat Obama. I just don't see it happening. The world is changing but its not going backwards.

I feel an instinctual repulsion whenever I see or hear this man speak. I can't help but notice that my repulsion is virtually identical in nature to what I felt when hearing/seeing then Presidential Candidate GWB in '99/2000..and all the way through his presidency. The essence of my instinct is a perception of danger, and to me the potential of this 'danger' is rooted/concentrated in the psychological dynamic of self-righteousness that is defining Romney's consciousness. As we know the phenomenon of self-righteousness is one of the hallmarks of consensus state consciousness, but in the case of this soul, it is particularly emphasized and actively employed/imposed.

I think of Romney's recent declaration in a speech, when he was drawing a contrast between himself and President Obama relative to orientation in foreign relations: "I will never, ever apologize for America". Venus in aquarius/10th, relative to uranus in gemini/1st, and neptune in libra/5th: i.e. 'God wants America to lead (dominate) the entire rest of the world'. This again is reflected in Romney's own words: "God did not create this country to be a nation of followers. America is not destined to be one of several equally balanced global powers." Translation: in Romney's distorted world, the very notion of giving, sharing, and inclusion--to live and co-exist in a state of collective harmony, cooperation, and equality--is a direct threat to the Zarathustra reality that motivates Romney's ambitions. If Romney were to actually be elected president, this would reflect an absolute resistance within the american collective to embracing the necessary work of accepting and applying the necessary adjustments implied in natal USA's neptune in virgo/5th..adjustments which would then allow for a mutation of sociological reality and ultimately manifest collective relief.

In a reasonable world, the events of the recent past which have imploded America into its present condition, would of themselves, seemingly be enough to guarantee the rejection of a candidate like Romney. However..this is not a time of collective clarity (i.e. a 'reasonable world').. It is a time where collective fear of cataclysmic change and sociological mutation (relative to natal USA saturn return) is causing all kinds of distorted extremities to surface from the collective american psyche..a uranian phenomenon..and presently this is being responded to by a large percentage of american citizens at a base, survival-oriented level. Wolf's words are so true when he describes the sheer power of the survival instinct: this influence potentially leading to choices and actions that one would never think or see themselves making. Taurus (survival instinct) is intercepted in Romney's 12th and ruled by that venus in aquarius. The primary ruler of that 12th house being mars in pisces, conjunct that mercury ruling uranus in gemini. This reflects a powerful influence Romney potentially has upon the american collective subconscious/unconscious--and all the fears that have been repressed within it, relative to a survival instinct that is in a very hypersensitive condition within the american population. These symbols show that this influence is used for self-interest, self-gain, and self-aggrandizement, through the agency of his public role..venus in aquarius/10th.

Circling back to my initial comment about instinctual perception of danger relative to Romney potentially winning the presidency.. The danger here is the fact that the self-righteous orientation defining his consciousness is, in reality, producing an awareness that doesn't go much further than the tip of his nose. He simply doesn't think things through beyond the egocentric aggrandized fantasies he imagines when he visualizes himself in this role. And because his awareness is so limited in this way, he has no actual comprehension of the potential ramifications his self-aggrandizing words could ACTUALLY have upon the nation as a whole, relative to environmental reactions initiated by the uranus in gemini/1st..trauma via incitement through words..

A friend emailed me this about the actual reality of how Romney's Bain Capital actually worked. I think it speaks for itself.

**********

Jon Stewart did what so few in our mainstream corporate media have been willing to do with Mitt Romney's so-called record on "job creation" and his time at Bain Capital and their leveraged buyouts of many of the companies they took over.

Here's Stewart explaining the kind of business Romney practiced in, in a manner most of our Villagers in the mainstream media are apparently incapable of.

STEWART: It's like putting ten percent down on a car, then using the value of that car to get another loan and repay yourself that ten percent and and maybe a little twenty percent... on top for your troubles and then walking away, leaving the car on the hook for the payments.

But, for Bain Capital to borrow money from other people, knowing that those debts might never be repaid, while still profiting themselves, I don't know. I don't know how I feel about that business practice. Does it make anyone else uneasy?

ROMNEY: I think it's simply immoral for us as a nation and as a generation, to keep spending more and more money, by borrowing money from other people knowing that those debts will never be repaid during our lifetimes.

STEWART: I don't know who that ruggedly handsome guy is but I agree one hundred percent. So there you go and his pitch to Americans seems to be, elect me as your president. I have twenty five years of business experience doing something I believe this country should never ever do.

Romney's Economic Plan Isn't Concerned About the Poor - or the Middle Class

By Jon Perr

One day after branding President Obama "really out of touch with what's happening in America," Mitt Romney marked his Florida primary victory by declaring, "I'm not concerned about the very poor." Of course, back in December Romney announced that "I'm concerned about the poor in this country," adding, "We have to make sure the safety net is strong and able to help those who can't help themselves."

If Mitt Romney's latest statement seems like a contradiction, at least it's a more honest one. After all, his proposal to slash $700 billion in Medicaid spending and send what's left as block grants to the states would devastate the program serving nearly 60 million poor and elderly Americans. But as it turns out, his 59 point, 162 page economic plan isn't very concerned with the middle class, either. Over the next decade, that budget-busting blueprint would drain $6.6 trillion from the U.S. Treasury and divert most of it into the pockets of the richest Americans.

On Wednesday, Romney explained his devil-may-care attitude towards the 46.2 million Americans now living in poverty and the 51 million more with incomes less than 50 percent above the poverty line:

"I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there," Romney told CNN. "If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich, they're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90 percent, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."

That's an odd statement for Mitt Romney to make, and not merely because he previously declared himself part of "the 80 to 90 percent of us" who are middle class. Romney's own economic plan says otherwise. Romney's isn't worried about fixing the safety net; he wants to shred it. And in December, Chris Wallace of Fox News called him on it.

WALLACE: But you don't think if you cut $700 billion dollars in aid to the states that some people are going to get hurt?

ROMNEY: In the same way that by cutting welfare spending dramatically, I don't think we hurt the poor. In the same way I think cutting Medicaid spending by having it go to the states run more efficiently with less fraud, I don't think will hurt the people that depend on that program for their healthcare.

It's not just that Romney's block grant program would lead governors to begin "capping enrollment, thinning benefits, increasing co-payments, and so on" in the future. As Ezra Klein explained, they are already doing that now:

Twenty states implemented benefit restrictions in the past year. In fiscal year 2010, 39 states implemented Medicaid provider rate cuts or freezes (up from 33 in fiscal year 2009), and 37 states have provider rate restrictions planned for the next fiscal year.

And as the Kaiser Family Foundation determined last year, the Ryan plan championed by Mitt Romney and virtually every Republican in Washington to repeal the Affordable Care Act would certainly hurt working Americans as well:

"By 2021, between 31 million and 44 million fewer people nationally would have Medicaid coverage under the House Budget Plan relative to expected enrollment under current law."

Then there's Mitt Romney's tax plan.

That's the one he claimed was focused on the middle class. It's not just that his proposal to make the Bush tax cuts permanent and eliminate the capital gains tax on the first $200,000 of investment income does not help the middle class, it's that Mitt Romney would deliver another gilded-class payday to the very rich, himself included.

Last month, McClatchy reported that the "Romney tax plan would most benefit [the] wealthy." The Center for American Progress explained just how much. While "Romney's plan also gives nearly 60 percent of its benefit to the richest 1 percent of Americans," Mitt's tax cuts for millionaires are "nearly twice the size of those from George W. Bush."

And that was before Mitt Romney's spontaneous outburst during a debate last month that he would really like a top rate of 25 and not 35 percent.

It's worth noting that Romney, the $250 Million Man, has also proposed eliminating the estate tax. Compared to the current 35 percent rate on estates larger than $10 million, Mitt's tax plan would give his heirs roughly $84 million courtesy of the U.S. Treasury and all other American taxpayers. With his plans to extend the Bush tax cuts, lower the corporate tax rate, and repeal some high-income tax increases from the Affordable Care Act; the impact of on the national debt would be staggering. As ThinkProgress detailed in September:

Romney's tax plan includes a $6.6 TRILLION giveaway to corporations and the wealthiest Americans. Meanwhile, Romney's Medicaid cuts are even more draconian than the ones in Paul Ryan plan.

So much for Romney's claim that "I want to focus on where the people are hurting the most, and that's the middle class. I'm not worried about rich people. They are doing just fine." But at least Mitt Romney was telling the truth when he said, "I'm not concerned about the very poor."

Sometimes, this facet of Romney's personality isn't so subtle. In July 1996,the 14-year-old daughter of Robert Gay, a partner at Bain Capital, haddisappeared. She had attended a rave party in New York City and gotten highon ecstasy. Three days later, her distraught father had no idea where shewas. Romney took immediate action. He closed down the entire firm and askedall 30 partners and employees to fly to New York to help find Gay'sdaughter. Romney set up a command center at the LaGuardia Marriott and hireda private detective firm to assist with the search. He established atoll-free number for tips, coordinating the effort with the NYPD, and wentthrough his Rolodex and called everyone Bain did business with in New York ,and asked them to help find his friend's missing daughter. Romney'saccountants at Price Waterhouse Cooper put up posters on street poles,while cashiers at a pharmacy owned by Bain put fliers in the bag of everyshopper. Romney and the other Bain employees scoured every part of New Yorkand talked with everyone they could - prostitutes, drug addicts - anyone.

That day, their hunt made the evening news, which featured photos of thegirl and the Bain employees searching for her. As a result, a teenage boyphoned in, asked if there was a reward, and then hung up abruptly. The NYPDtraced the call to a home in New Jersey , where they found the girl in thebasement, shivering and experiencing withdrawal symptoms from a massiveecstasy dose. Doctors later said the girl might not have survived anotherday. Romney's former partner credits Mitt Romney with saving his daughter'slife, saying, "It was the most amazing thing, and I'll never forget this tothe day I die."

So, here's my epiphany: Mitt Romney simply can't help himself. He sees aproblem, and his mind immediately sets to work solving it, sometimesconsciously, and sometimes not-so-consciously. He doesn't do it forself-aggrandizement, or for personal gain. He does it because that's justhow he's wired.

Many people are unaware of the fact that when Romney was asked by his oldemployer, Bill Bain, to come back to Bain & Company as CEO to rescue thefirm from bankruptcy, Romney left Bain Capital to work at Bain & Company foran annual salary of one dollar. When Romney went to the rescue of the 2002Salt Lake Olympics , he accepted no salary for three years, and wouldn't usean expense account. He also accepted no salary as Governor of Massachusetts.

What symbols/signature in Mitt Romney's chart are you drawing from to support the epiphany you've shared?

When you say that you see Romney's behavior as not being motivated by self-interest, gain, or aggrandizement..that he is simply 'wired' to solve problems, what I'm hearing you speaking to is the mars/aries/1st house archetype..the instinctual function within us that generates an impulse to act without forethought. While this archetype is indeed purely instinctual, there is always a reason and cause for the kind of instinctual nature we are born with..i.e. desire. What is the desire in Romney's soul that would explain the why of his instinctual nature and how he is acting upon it? We also can't overlook the fact that the planet mars in Romney's chart is correlating to a skip step. Mars in pisces. This is showing us that there is a dynamic active in Romney's instinctual nature, leading to certain types of actions and ambitions (mars/10th) that are delusive in nature. If Romney were indeed acting upon impulses generated through the godhead, as he has alluded to in some of his publicized comments, we would probably not be seeing mars as a skipped step.

A satirical redefinition of the word “Romney” has leapt from obscurity and into the limelight this week by cracking a list of the top 10 Google search results for the Republican presidential candidate’s last name.

Similar to the “Spreading Santorum” website that has so plagued anti-gay Republican Rick Santorum by redefining his last name to mean “the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex,” “Spreading Romney” does the leading Republican candidate no favors.

Much to the campaign’s assured dismay, it defines the word “Romney” as a verb meaning, “To defecate in terror.”

The page was #4 overall in Google’s search results for the term “Romney” at time of this story’s publication.

On the website, the word “terror” links to The Huffington Post, which reminds readers that the Massachusetts Republican once strapped a dog to the roof of his vehicle ahead of a family road trip in 1983. According to a 2007 Boston Globe profile of the candidate, Romney’s oldest son, Tagg, yelled, “Gross!” as he noticed a brown liquid flowing down the back window from the Irish Setter Seamus.

“As the rest of the boys joined in the howls of disgust, Romney coolly pulled off the highway and into a service station,” the Globe noted. “There, he borrowed a hose, washed down Seamus and the car, then hopped back onto the highway. It was a tiny preview of a trait he would grow famous for in business: emotion-free crisis management.”

Asked by The Wall Street Journal about the bizarre behavior, Romney said simply: “Love my dog. That’s all I’ve got for ya.”

The story has haunted Romney for years, and looks to play at least a minor role in the 2012 campaign, should he become the nominee.

In a stroke of ironic luck, a protester with the group “Dogs Against Romney” was recently pulled over by police in Littleton, Colorado for suspected animal abuse after officers spotted a dog kennel with what appeared to be an animal inside, strapped to the top of a vehicle.

It turned out the man just had a stuffed animal inside and he was not cited.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. It was the year of protecting Social Security, and the year of cutting Social Security. It was the age of defending Medicare, and the age of ending Medicare.

In other words, it was another day on the Mitt Romney campaign trail. This week Romney's evil twins (there isn't a good one) played both sides of the Social Security issue, but finally came down on the side of the party's power brokers.

That placed him squarely against its own rank and file, as a new video and recent polling both confirm.

But then, reversing himself is a Romney specialty. Last week the "effectively pro-choice" turned "pro-life" candidate went to the CPAC Conference to tell the world about his "extreme conservative" governorship of Massachusetts - Obamacare is Rightycare when Mitt does it - and it was all "we conservatives" this and "we conservatives" that.

(Does he drive to Shriners' conventions in one of those funny little Shriner cars, wearing a Shriner fez and talking about "we Shriners"?)

Then he directed his double vision toward Social Security and Medicare.

One Romney Makes Entitlements Safer ...

Yesterday Romney slammed President Obama on entitlements, saying "the president has failed to offer a single serious idea to save Social Security and is the only president in modern history to cut Medicare benefits for seniors." He added that Obama "had nothing to say about making sure that those programs are solvent and permanent."

Romney's stance as a pro-entitlement champion echoed the GOP's "Seniors' Bill of Rights," which was a hallmark of their winning 2010 Congressional campaign. That plan insisted on "no cuts to Medicare to pay for another program: Zero."

Then, after the election, they promptly introduced the Ryan Plan to dismantle Medicare altogether. (Those who claim that it wouldn't end Medicare are living in an Alice-in-Wonderland world - and smoking the Cato-Piller's hookah ...) Romney didn't bother waiting.

... and One Romney Makes Them Small

Romney's CPAC speech was very specific about the cuts he'd like to make. He couldn't have been clearer. "Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable," said Romney, "not for the current group of retirees, but for coming generations."

See what he did there? Romney combined Social Security - a completely self-sustaining program - with Medicare, a program whose long-range problems are caused by precisely the kind of private-sector healthcare that Romney and his party defend.

And think about it: Would-be Social Security cutters like Romney are always telling us it's unsupportable because so many Baby Boomers are about to retire. (In reality, they largely prefunded their own retirement with increased contributions and other changes.) Yet, like Romney, they then turn around and say that it's "later generations" who must face Draconian cuts.

It doesn't make sense - but making sense isn't their goal. Cutting Social Security is. And Romney's happy to carry out the mission he's been given.

... and the One That Grover Gives You Doesn't Do Anything At All

Romney's the Thing With Two Heads, the man with two opinions. How can a person pull off a trick like that? Practice.

Usually Romney waits a little while before reversing himself, but for Social Security and Medicare he's accomplished a feat physicists once thought impossible for anything larger than a photon: He's managed to be in two places at once.

But that's Mitt. He's a "second variety" candidate, a "shmoo," a shapeshifter who will become whatever's expedient. To call him an empty suit is to grant him too much substance. He appears to have no emotional core except ambition and no values except the net present value of the next job-destroying investment.

Romney is exactly who Grover Norquist thinks he is: Someone who will do what he's told. And the orders have already been written, as Norquist helpfully explained:

"We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget. ... We just need a president to sign this stuff ... The leadership now for the modern conservative movement for the next 20 years will be coming out of the House and the Senate ... Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president ... his job is to be captain of the team, to sign the legislation that has already been prepared."

That's where Mitt comes in.

Plan 59 From Outer Space

Besides, Romney already told us what he would do in his famous package of "59 economic proposals." There, as at CPAC, he promised that current retirees' benefits would not be affected and offers reductions in the already-inadequate cost of living adjustment - which is a benefit cut for current retirees too - as well as increases to the retirement age (in addition to those already underway, which nobody ever seems to mention. The next increase will amount to a 13 percent benefit cut for anyone born after 1959).

Romney's plan also states that Paul Ryan's plan to dismantle Medicare "makes important strides in the right direction by keeping the system solvent and introducing market-based dynamics," although he promises some unspecified differences.

Romney specifically excludes the one solution that is supported by most Americans, including most Republicans: Lifting the payroll tax cap so that it's assessed against more of the earnings of millionaires like himself.

Republican vs. Republican

That pits Romney and the Republican leadership squarely against their own base, as a recent poll shows: 69 percent of Republicans would rather raise the cap than cut benefits, including 67 percent of Tea Party members.

Seventy-seven percent of those much-sought-after independents agree, as do 84 percent of Democrats.

That means Mitt's Plan 59 is going to tick off rank-and-file conservatives, as you can see in this video from my colleagues and pals at Social Security Works:

These conservatives have a firm grasp of the topic. One points out that Social Security is an insurance program, while another notes that people have paid into the program all their lives and are entitled to receive its benefits. Both statements are absolutely correct.

A young conservative in the video shows equal perspicacity by saying that good conservatives like him shouldn't vote for Mitt Romney.

But in the end, if he becomes the GOP nominee most of them will. It's an old trick: In 2010 the Republicans ran as defenders of Medicare and Social Security. They even created a "Seniors' Bill of Rights" that declared flatly: "No cuts." But as soon as they re-took the House they immediately started pushing Social Security cuts and created the Ryan Plan to gut Medicare.

Contradictions be damned. Mitt soldiers on, his jaw firmly set and his head held high, marching resolutely in two directions at once. But the orders have been given and the stage has been set. We know where he'll really lead us if the two Mitts are elected President: He - or they - will cut Social Security and Medicare.

And if the last flickering embers of his conscience must die to do it, then so be it. "It's a far, far better thing we do today than we have ever done before ... "

If you want to serve power brokers like the Koch Brothers and Grover Norquist, you have to be willing to impose policies that vast majorities of voters - including your own base - overwhelmingly reject. Real leaders show us their one face, their true face. But if you want to serve the GOP's power elite then, as the old song says, "it takes two."

When it comes to Social Security and Medicare, Mitt Romney's showing them that he's just the men for the job.

By all accounts, Mitt Romney is a smart businessman with a sophisticated understanding of how economies work. So why is he so tied up in knots over basic questions of government spending in a recession and the limits of the free market?

Because he’s running for president in a party that has lost its economic common sense, its political bearings and probably Michigan’s electoral votes.

Here’s the Republican candidate off-script (the best way to find out what’s in his head) at a town hall meeting Tuesday in Shelby Township, Michigan: “If you just cut, if all you’re thinking about doing is cutting spending, why, as you cut spending you’ll slow down the economy, so you have to at the same time create pro-growth tax policies.”

This is a classic example of a “Kinsley gaffe” (named for my Bloomberg View colleague Michael Kinsley), which is when a politician accidentally says something that’s true but politically inconvenient.

Sure enough, Andy Roth, vice president for government affairs at the fiscally conservative Club for Growth, called Romney’s comments “hogwash.” Roth said the statement “confirms yet again that Romney is not a limited government conservative. The idea that balancing the budget would not help the economy is crazy. If we balanced the budget tomorrow on spending cuts alone, it would be fantastic for the economy.”

Ask a Professor

Oh, really? If we balanced the budget by immediately cutting $1.3 trillion in spending, as some Tea Party adherents advocate, unemployment would surge. Spending cuts (mostly through entitlement reform) are critical in the medium and long term, but they’re harmful when the economy is weak. If you don’t believe Romney or me on this point, ask any economics professor who isn’t a crackpot.

After Romney’s gaffe, a campaign spokesman undertook damage control with a tortured statement that amounted to saying that Romney supports the House Republican “Cut and Grow” economic policy. This is the one that shuns all “investment” as a Democratic codeword for spending (thereby repudiating 150 years of Republican support for infrastructure investments) and says that the route to economic growth is through tax cuts.

A preview of Romney’s tax plan making its debut Friday in a speech in Detroit suggests that “Romneynomics” would in effect transfer wealth from the poor and the future old (through draconian cuts in Medicaid and Medicare) to the wealthy (through more tax cuts at the upper end). You may recall that President George W. Bush tried a variant of this with his 2001 tax cuts and the result was the weakest decade of job growth since the 1930s.

Romney is trapped in a “theology” (to use Rick Santorum’s word in a different context) that he knows is completely inadequate for addressing our economic problems.

We first glimpsed that trap during the 2008-09 economic crisis. Like many in his party, Romney supported the Troubled Asset Relief Program for banks but opposed the portion of TARP devoted to the auto industry. He was sure the auto bailouts would fail and thus he was safe in writing his now famous “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” op-ed article in the New York Times.

In fairness to Romney, that piece was written in November 2008, when clueless automakers were asking for money from the outgoing Bush administration with no strings attached. (They got $17.4 billion and flushed it down the same old rat holes.) Romney wrote that government guarantees for warranties and post- bankruptcy financing would be acceptable and these eventually became part of the Obama deal.Intellectually Bankrupt

Even so, the premise of that piece, which endorsed a “managed bankruptcy” without direct federal money, was itself intellectually bankrupt. It assumed that the car companies would find new investors after reorganization. But the firm Romney co- founded, Bain Capital LLC, was among many potential creditors that refused to touch any deal involving auto companies. The billions necessary to keep General Motors Co. (GM) and Chrysler alive weren’t available from any place but the government. When CNN moderator John King made this point during Wednesday’s debate among Republican candidates, Romney tried to ignore it.

Romney’s approach was popular among many Republicans, who hypocritically argued that the rules of free market capitalism could be suspended to bail out bankers but not workers. Sure, hundreds of thousands of people working for auto companies or their suppliers would lose their jobs, but that was just part of capitalism’s “creative destruction.”

This selective approach to conservative principles — not Romney’s opposition to the auto bailouts — is what put Romney in trouble with primary voters in Michigan, where Santorum’s consistency in opposing all bailouts has won him conservative support.

Santorum tried to use that consistency to his advantage in Wednesday’s debate. Like so much else about his performance, he failed. Could it be that free market fundamentalists have been consistently wrong for three years? They are the “little minds” Ralph Waldo Emerson had in mind when he savaged the “hobgoblin” of “foolish consistency.”

Every so often, history renders a clear verdict. However noxious and debatable the particulars, the TARP bank bailouts averted a global run on American banks and a depression. They helped to stabilize the global economy. Almost all of the money has been paid back.

The auto bailouts? The reduction in Michigan’s unemployment rate from 14.1 percent in 2009 to 9.3 percent today isn’t a matter of opinion or differing economic philosophy. It’s a happy reality that should make any open-minded conservative acknowledge that dogmatic adherence to abstract principles usually ends badly.

Romney’s core problem is that he doesn’t have the courage of his pragmatic impulses. If he did, he’d stick with his view that cutting spending sharply in the short term is a bad idea, and that in extremely rare circumstances we must hold our noses, put principles aside and let Washington prop up vital industries.

Of course he can’t say that, which means that winning Michigan is all but out of reach for him or any other Republican candidate this fall.